New Journal Of Physics

---
name: new-journal-of-physics
description: Use when targeting New Journal of Physics (NJP) or deciding whether a broad-physics manuscript fits this open-access IOP/DPG venue. Encodes the journal's fit, framing, method-and-evidence bar, house style, official-submission re-check, and desk-reject heuristics.
---

# New Journal of Physics (new-journal-of-physics)

## Journal positioning

NJP is published jointly by IOP Publishing and the Deutsche Physikalische Gesellschaft (DPG), is fully open access, and positions itself as a broad-scope, high-quality physics journal spanning the discipline. Its defining character is breadth with significance: NJP publishes substantial, technically sound papers across quantum information, atomic/molecular/optical (AMO) physics, condensed matter, optics and photonics, statistical and biological physics, and beyond, judged on scientific quality and importance to its field rather than on fitting a narrow topical mandate. NJP emphasizes article-level metrics and accessibility over a single journal impact figure, and it is a natural home for complete, well-motivated studies that are too broad or too specialized for a sub-field-only journal but do not need the selectivity of a flagship. Readership is the general physics community across theory and experiment. This skill is a **fit / venue-selection / re-framing** tool. It does not replace the journal's current official submission guidelines. Before submitting, re-check the live author instructions on the NJP/IOP site.

## When to trigger

- The author names NJP as the target venue for a complete, significant physics paper of broad interest.
- A manuscript in quantum information, AMO, condensed matter, or optics is technically solid and the author is choosing between NJP, Physical Review X, PRX Quantum, and a sub-field Physical Review journal.
- A paper has genuine importance to its field but a broad enough scope that a topic-restricted journal is a poor fit.
- The author needs NJP's open-access terms, article-level-metrics ethos, and breadth-oriented framing, plus desk-reject criteria, before submission.

## Scope & topic fit

- Quantum information and computation: quantum algorithms, error correction, entanglement theory, quantum simulation, quantum metrology, and open quantum systems.
- Atomic, molecular, and optical physics: cold atoms and molecules, ion traps, cavity and circuit QED, precision measurement, and ultrafast/strong-field physics.
- Condensed matter and materials: correlated electrons, topological phases, spintronics, low-dimensional systems, and quantum transport, theory or experiment.
- Optics and photonics: nanophotonics, quantum optics, metamaterials, structured light, and integrated photonic devices.
- Statistical, nonlinear, and complex-systems physics; biological and soft-matter physics where the physics question is central.
- Cross-disciplinary physics that advances a clear physical principle and is of interest beyond a single specialist community.

## Method & evidence bar

- The study must be complete and technically sound: claims fully supported by the presented theory, simulation, or measurement, with assumptions stated.
- Significance to the field, not just correctness, is part of the bar — the paper should advance understanding or capability in a way a broad physics readership would value.
- Experimental work must report uncertainties, calibration, and error budgets; statistical claims must be justified.
- Numerical and computational results must specify methods, convergence, and parameters sufficiently for reproduction.
- Theoretical results should be checked against limiting cases or independent methods, and connected to existing literature.
- Data and code underlying the results should be made available per the journal's data-availability policy; deposition in a public repository is expected where applicable.

## Structure & house style

- NJP uses IOP's article format and LaTeX/Word templates; there is no rigid length cap, but papers should be as long as needed and no longer.
- Standard structure (Introduction, Methods/Model, Results, Discussion, Conclusion) is typical, with technical detail in appendices or supplementary material.
- The introduction must motivate the work for a broad physics audience and state the advance clearly, not only for sub-field specialists.
- Figures should be self-contained and quantitatively clear; supplementary material carries extended derivations and additional data.
- References follow IOP conventions; cite current literature across the relevant sub-fields.
- Abstracts are unstructured and should convey the problem, the result, and its significance concisely.

## Official-submission checklist

- Before giving submission-ready advice, read `../../resources/source-basis.md` and `../../resources/official-source-map.md`; start from the official source anchors for this journal family, then cite the current journal-specific page you checked.
- Search the live site for "New Journal of Physics author guidelines" / "NJP submission" and follow the current IOP version.
- Re-check the IOP template requirements and any current formatting, figure, and supplementary-material conventions.
- Re-check the open-access / article-processing-charge terms and any institutional or DPG-related arrangements.
- Re-check data-availability, code-availability, competing-interests, and AI-use disclosure requirements; confirm preprint (arXiv) policy.
- If the live official instructions conflict with this skill, the official instructions win.

## Pre-submission self-check

- [ ] One sentence — the physical advance of this paper and why it matters to a broad physics readership.
- [ ] Claims are fully supported by the theory, simulation, or measurement presented; assumptions are explicit.
- [ ] The work is significant to its field, not merely a correct incremental result with narrow appeal.
- [ ] Uncertainties, error budgets, or numerical convergence are reported as appropriate.
- [ ] Data and code are available per the data-availability policy; accession details are ready.
- [ ] The paper is positioned against recent NJP / PRX / sub-field PR literature on this question.

## Common desk-reject triggers

- A technically sound but incremental result of interest only to a narrow specialist sub-community without broader physics significance.
- A study with unsupported claims, missing uncertainties, or insufficient methodological detail to reproduce.
- A paper framed solely for sub-field insiders with no broad-physics motivation in the introduction.
- A manuscript that duplicates known results or trivially extends prior work.
- A non-physics or engineering-only contribution where no clear physical principle is advanced.

## Re-routing decision

- Broad-physics result of exceptional importance needing flagship selectivity and visibility: `physical-review-x`.
- Quantum information / computation work aimed at the dedicated quantum community: `prx-quantum`.
- Condensed-matter result best matched to the specialist APS section: `physical-review-b`.
- High-impact, broad-audience framing for a Nature-family venue: `nature-physics`.

## Output format

```text
[Fit] High / Medium / Low (one-line reason)
[Target] New Journal of Physics (NJP)
[Topic tags] <2–3 closest topics>
[Method/evidence] <is the study complete, technically sound, and significant to a broad physics readership, with uncertainties and reproducibility addressed?>
[Top risk] <the single most likely reason for rejection>
[Official items to re-check] <IOP template / open-access charge / data-code availability / disclosure / arXiv policy>
[Re-route suggestion] <if not a fit, a better-matched venue>
```